Filtering out bottle sediment

[IODINE]

You can google them.... they have them at brew places.... you can filter your brew because u don't need the 2ndary... then it's transferred onto a carboy/,keg thing. Co2 is injected and it takes 24 hours for beer to become carbonated... then u bottle it. I believe it's how breweries do it but clearly different scale

I looked onto bringing beer to a brew store and paying to have it done but it was not cheap and the minimum was double batch.... but it's worth trying I think then I may buy one.... but I'm still on fence as it's kind of a must for me I hate sediment and I hate wasting bottom of beer and handling it like a fabrage egg... so depending on cost of equipment vs how good process is and how much beer I'll be drinking... where I am it's around 60 cents to make 341 bottle so I'm saving $1 a beer for low end beer... so 64 or so a batch it could take 6 batches or so to break even...
But its a hobby so that evens it up

 

[IODINE]

I believe what your describing with the keg is draft beer..
. I'd prefere to be able to transport my beer to neighbors house or cottage... keg is to big and with 2ndary ferm I can't transport it across the living room without pouring first

 

[IAmPistolPete]

OK soap box time. Whether beer, wine, cider, wash, etc there is no more misleading term than "secondary fermentation". I freaking hate it. Drives me f'n ****-house. It is NOT a separate or additional fermentation!!! [ok unless MLF sets in]
I see & hear of more newbs take it so literally and then get confused as to what to do next or how to do it. It is a second stage of the fermentation process and more like "conditioning" or "stabilization" after the yeast have done their "primary" job.

ok rant over. ....as you were...

 

[An Ankoù]

OK soap box time. Whether beer, wine, cider, wash, etc there is no more misleading term than "secondary fermentation". I freaking hate it. Drives me f'n ****-house. It is NOT a separate or additional fermentation!!! [ok unless MLF sets in]
I see & hear of more newbs take it so literally and then get confused as to what to do next or how to do it. It is a second stage of the fermentation process and more like "conditioning" or "stabilization" after the yeast have done their "primary" job.

ok rant over. ....as you were...

Nice rant, @IAmPistolPete, and I quite agree that it's sloppy language. My understanding is that green beer is racked off the trub and settled yeast into a second fermenter to clean up and finish itself. When I use a conical fermenter with a dump valve, I don't think of secondary fermentation after the bottoms have been dumped. Lagering isn't secondary fermentation either.
I suppose restarting fermentation by adding dry hops (hop creep) or the Franco/Belgian idea of refermentation in the bottle, with fresh yeast could be considered "secondary", but it's not what we have in mind when we use the term.

 

[worlddivides]

You can google them.... they have them at brew places.... you can filter your brew because u don't need the 2ndary... then it's transferred onto a carboy/,keg thing. Co2 is injected and it takes 24 hours for beer to become carbonated... then u bottle it. I believe it's how breweries do it but clearly different scale

I'm really confused. Most breweries carbonate their beer, then transfer them to bottles or cans (or kegs for places that have their beers on tap, though if it's kegs, they can just carbonate in the keg). One way is by using a carbonation stone in the fermenter itself. Another is basically the same way homebrewers do with a CO2 tank connected to kegs. Many breweries also do bottle conditioning (especially for more expensive, smaller batch beers like aged sours and so on. You're not going to find a macrobrewery using bottle conditioning). I've never heard of these "CO2 adding machines, though." Can you post a link? There are a lot of different methods for filtration used by professional breweries, but they are all separate from the carbonation process.

Also, most brewers never use a secondary. I've only used secondaries for beers that are going to be in the fermenters for months to years before bottling such as traditional sours.

 

[IODINE]

OK soap box time. Whether beer, wine, cider, wash, etc there is no more misleading term than "secondary fermentation". I freaking hate it. Drives me f'n ****-house. It is NOT a separate or additional fermentation!!! [ok unless MLF sets in]
I see & hear of more newbs take it so literally and then get confused as to what to do next or how to do it. It is a second stage of the fermentation process and more like "conditioning" or "stabilization" after the yeast have done their "primary" job.

ok rant over. ....as you were...

OK soap box time. Whether beer, wine, cider, wash, etc there is no more misleading term than "secondary fermentation". I freaking hate it. Drives me f'n ****-house. It is NOT a separate or additional fermentation!!! [ok unless MLF sets in]
I see & hear of more newbs take it so literally and then get confused as to what to do next or how to do it. It is a second stage of the fermentation process and more like "conditioning" or "stabilization" after the yeast have done their "primary" job.

ok rant over. ....as you were...

Well I'm not really a newbie as 30 years ago I brewed beer for years and kept brewing wine for years after..BUT I will accept the label on this forum as when I brewed we were university kids just wanting to make cheap beer... so I am a newbie in terms of creating quality and I've never started from base ingredients just malt in a can...
That said when I brewed it took like 2 weeks then it was called clearing but maybe more is happening in there...
It was clearly called 2ndary fem when you added a tiny bit of sugar when bottling to create co2... but that was forever ago And maybe just a convenient label

 

[worlddivides]

That said when I brewed it took like 2 weeks then it was called clearing but maybe more is happening in there...
It was clearly called 2ndary fem when you added a tiny bit of sugar when bottling to create co2... but that was forever ago And maybe just a convenient label

I can definitely see how someone could think of that as "secondary fermentation," but I normally see it referred to as either "bottle carbonation" or "bottle conditioning." Often when we say "secondary," we're referring to transferring from the first fermenter (the "primary") to the second fermenter (the "secondary"), a practice not particularly common in most beer styles today. And especially in that case, if you're adding fruit or sugar or it's a kind of wild yeast or bacteria that takes a very long time to ferment, that would be "secondary fermentation." But yeah, the yeast is fermenting sugar in the bottle during bottle carbonation, so I don't think "secondary fermentation" is wrong.

 

[IODINE]

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/transferring-carbonated-beer-from-keg-to-bottle.441670/

I'm not sure if this is the same...
I'm going to go to brew your own place and look into it.... I would expect this to be basic knowledge on this site but since you guys dont seen to know about it I'm questioning if it exists in
the form I think bit does....

It seems to make sense... you pressurize brew, carbonating it then transfer to bottles....I mean breweries don't have sediment they sure don't bottle condition or whatever u want to call it.

I'm in Canada and I know a place that does it ... usually it's for there on-site brew your own customers but I called then and I could bring in my batch... but they required double batch and I lost interest ( well life got in the way)
But know I'm back wanting to get deeper into this and make beer from scratch... sediment may be a more pure form but a little modern age tech can't hurt

 

[worlddivides]

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/transferring-carbonated-beer-from-keg-to-bottle.441670/

I'm not sure if this is the same...
I'm going to go to brew your own place and look into it.... I would expect this to be basic knowledge on this site but since you guys dont seen to know about it I'm questioning if it exists in
the form I think bit does....

It seems to make sense... you pressurize brew, carbonating it then transfer to bottles....I mean breweries don't have sediment they sure don't bottle condition or whatever u want to call it.

I'm in Canada and I know a place that does it ... usually it's for there on-site brew your own customers but I called then and I could bring in my batch... but they required double batch and I lost interest ( well life got in the way)
But know I'm back wanting to get deeper into this and make beer from scratch... sediment may be a more pure form but a little modern age tech can't hurt

That's not a machine. That's just a CO2 tank hooked up to a keg, then once it's carbonated, you transfer from the keg to bottles. That's a method that some homebrewers use.

Breweries that bottle condition DO have sediment. And there are a TON of craft breweries that bottle condition for at least some of their beers. Even Sierra Nevada bottle conditions some of their beers.

I mean, this popped up at the top in a Google search:
https://www.beeradvocate.com/commun...bottle-condition-their-12oz-offerings.113585/

If you want zero sediment, carbonating in a keg with a CO2 tank and then transferring to bottles would be one way to do it.

 

[IODINE]

I can definitely see how someone could think of that as "secondary fermentation," but I normally see it referred to as either "bottle carbonation" or "bottle conditioning." Often when we say "secondary," we're referring to transferring from the first fermenter (the "primary") to the second fermenter (the "secondary"), a practice not particularly common in most beer styles today. And especially in that case, if you're adding fruit or sugar or it's a kind of wild yeast or bacteria that takes a very long time to ferment, that would be "secondary fermentation." But yeah, the yeast is fermenting sugar in the bottle during bottle carbonation, so I don't think "secondary fermentation" is wro

I can definitely see how someone could think of that as "secondary fermentation," but I normally see it referred to as either "bottle carbonation" or "bottle conditioning." Often when we say "secondary," we're referring to transferring from the first fermenter (the "primary") to the second fermenter (the "secondary"), a practice not particularly common in most beer styles today. And especially in that case, if you're adding fruit or sugar or it's a kind of wild yeast or bacteria that takes a very long time to ferment, that would be "secondary fermentation." But yeah, the yeast is fermenting sugar in the bottle during bottle carbonation, so I don't think "secondary fermentation" is wrong.

I'm really confused. Most breweries carbonate their beer, then transfer them to bottles or cans (or kegs for places that have their beers on tap, though if it's kegs, they can just carbonate in the keg). One way is by using a carbonation stone in the fermenter itself. Another is basically the same way homebrewers do with a CO2 tank connected to kegs. Many breweries also do bottle conditioning (especially for more expensive, smaller batch beers like aged sours and so on. You're not going to find a macrobrewery using bottle conditioning). I've never heard of these "CO2 adding machines, though." Can you post a link? There are a lot of different methods for filtration used by professional breweries, but they are all separate from the carbonation process.

Also, most brewers never use a secondary. I've only used secondaries for beers that are going to be in the fermenters for months to years before bottling such as traditional sours.

I wrote a post with a link to something similar but it vanished.. I'm a bit of a dinosaur... but I know a place that uses technique for there brew customers of pressurizing the brew in keg for a couple days then you can bottle it And it keeps like store bought beer with no sediment...but that costs extra.. I was going to pay just for that service but I needed double batch and I stalded getting back into it... but the equip is like 400 bucks to do at home...

I'll go to the store and get the skinny on it

 

[worlddivides]

I wrote a post with a link to something similar but it vanished.. I'm a bit of a dinosaur... but I know a place that uses technique for there brew customers of pressurizing the brew in keg for a couple days then you can bottle it And it keeps like store bought beer with no sediment...but that costs extra.. I was going to pay just for that service but I needed double batch and I stalded getting back into it... but the equip is like 400 bucks to do at home...

A 5-gallon keg is around $100 or so (depending on what you get and where you get it, it can be a lot more, though). A CO2 tank is also around $100 or so. You can get both for cheaper if you go used. A picnic tap, beer line, gas line, and quick disconnects for both all together is under $30. So you could get all that new for around $230 to $250. You would want the beer lines, gas lines, picnic tap, and quick diconnects to be new, but if you went used for the keg and CO2 tank, you could get it for a lot cheaper than $200. You'd also want a beer gun so you can use the keg like a bottle filler on a bottling bucket, but that's also not that expensive. The most expensive part is the keg, followed by the CO2 tank.

Seeing as $400 Canadian is about $277 USD, your estimate for everything new is not as far off as I thought.

 

[IODINE]

That's not a machine. That's just a CO2 tank hooked up to a keg, then once it's carbonated, you transfer from the keg to bottles. That's a method that some homebrewers use.

Breweries that bottle condition DO have sediment. And there are a TON of craft breweries that bottle condition for at least some of their beers. Even Sierra Nevada bottle conditions some of their beers.

I mean, this popped up at the top in a Google search:
https://www.beeradvocate.com/commun...bottle-condition-their-12oz-offerings.113585/

If you want zero sediment, carbonating in a keg with a CO2 tank and then transferring to bottles would be one way to do it.

Yes i realize many beers have sediments and it's clearly a more historic and natural state to find a beer in....but to be fair that doesn't make those beers better just maybe more historically authentic..as time marches on technology allows techniques not possible in earlier times..it would be snobbery to feel removal of sediment is for a unsavy pallet....... like I said I'm Canadian and u can't sneeze without hitting a micro brewery... I love experimenting with different beers to the scorn of guys that get the same beer every time.... sure I get a nasty tasting beer now and then.... my favorite was upper Canada brewery but Sleaman bought it or was it Labatt... either way they tweaked recipes meaning made it taste like all there mainstream products . So I stopped buying it ... mostly now I really enjoy Czech lagers . anyways the point I'm making is I'm not a mainstream beer drinker but I don't want sediment.... on occasion I'll have a specialty beer with sediment but in general to me it's a drawback technology has overcome

 

[worlddivides]

Yes i realize many beers have sediments and it's clearly a more historic and natural state to find a beer in....but to be fair that doesn't make those beers better just maybe more historically authentic..as time marches on technology allows techniques not possible in earlier times..it would be snobbery to feel removal of sediment is for a unsavy pallet....... like I said I'm Canadian and u can't sneeze without hitting a micro brewery... I love experimenting with different beers to the scorn of guys that get the same beer every time.... sure I get a nasty tasting beer now and then.... my favorite was upper Canada brewery but Sleaman bought it or was it Labatt... either way they tweaked recipes meaning made it taste like all there mainstream products . So I stopped buying it ... mostly now I really enjoy Czech lagers . anyways the point I'm making is I'm not a mainstream beer drinker but I don't want sediment.... on occasion I'll have a specialty beer with sediment but in general to me it's a drawback technology has overcome

I never said it made them "better." I don't even bottle anymore. I force carbonate using a CO2 tank and keg. My beers have zero sediment at all. I was just pointing out that your idea that breweries don't have sediment and don't bottle condition was wrong. Also, as I pointed out, a lot of breweries that bottle carbonate/condition don't do it for all of their beers. It in general tends to be style specific. For example, they might use lots of filtration and forced carbonation for lagers, but they use bottle conditioning for their stouts and pale ales.

 

[IODINE]

A 5-gallon keg is around $100 or so (depending on what you get and where you get it, it can be a lot more, though). A CO2 tank is also around $100 or so. You can get both for cheaper if you go used. A picnic tap, beer line, gas line, and quick disconnects for both all together is under $30. So you could get all that new for around $230 to $250. You would want the beer lines, gas lines, picnic tap, and quick diconnects to be new, but if you went used for the keg and CO2 tank, you could get it for a lot cheaper than $200. You'd also want a beer gun so you can use the keg like a bottle filler on a bottling bucket, but that's also not that expensive. The most expensive part is the keg, followed by the CO2 tank.

Seeing as $400 Canadian is about $277 USD, your estimate for everything new is not as far off as I thought.

So does this work,? I read a post saying it only lasts 3 weeks.... but how can that be.. I mean where does co2 dissipate to?

Maybe the bottles need to be pressurized some how... I'll look into it and report back for anyone that cares on this revived 2009 post lol

 

[IODINE]

I never said it made them "better." I don't even bottle anymore. I force carbonate using a CO2 tank and keg. My beers have zero sediment at all. I was just pointing out that your idea that breweries don't have sediment and don't bottle condition was wrong. Also, as I pointed out, a lot of breweries that bottle carbonate/condition don't do it for all of their beers. It in general tends to be style specific. For example, they might use lots of filtration and forced carbonation for lagers, but they use bottle conditioning for their stouts and pale ales.

Yes I get what your saying....

 

[IODINE]

Yes I get what your saying.... and your right you didn't say they were better I guess I just read into it that u felt sediment was fine And I extended that to mean more traditional and inferred better... that's my bad I apologize..clearly you enjoy clear carbonized beer...... but I can't say its very common to find sediment in commercial beer.... maybe Belgian or German beers but in the west it just wouldn't sell ... nobody wants sandy beer... I used to get a wheat beer called korenwolf.. I think it had sediment... it was delicious almost tasted of banana... Sometimes I feel western breweries leave sediment as a marketing ploy to charge more

 

[worlddivides]

So does this work,? I read a post saying it only lasts 3 weeks.... but how can that be.. I mean where does co2 dissipate to?

Maybe the bottles need to be pressurized some how... I'll look into it and report back for anyone that cares on this revived 2009 post lol

In the thread you listed, the original poster said it only lasts 3 weeks, but you'll note that all of the responses said that doesn't make any sense. You're enclosing the beer in glass with a metal cap on the top. There is nowhere for the CO2 to escape. Whatever CO2 the beer is when you cap the beer is the CO2 the beer will be 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 months later. If you were using PET bottles (i.e. plastic), yes, the CO2 could escape, but not with glass with metal caps. The flavor of the beer itself will dissipate and deteriorate over time, but the carbonation will not.

 

[worlddivides]

Yes I get what your saying.... and your right you didn't say they were better I guess I just read into it that u felt sediment was fine And I extended that to mean more traditional and inferred better... that's my bad I apologize..clearly you enjoy clear carbonized beer...... but I can't say its very common to find sediment in commercial beer.... maybe Belgian or German beers but in the west it just wouldn't sell ... nobody wants sandy beer... I used to get a wheat beer called korenwolf.. I think it had sediment... it was delicious almost tasted of banana... Sometimes I feel western breweries leave sediment as a marketing ploy to charge more

To put it honestly, I don't see one or the other as "better." Though if I'm making a beer that I want to be clear, then I don't want any sediment at all. For example, lagers. Lagers should be as clear as possible. Hell, a good clear, clean West Coast IPA should also be very clear. For a traditional sour or a hazy IPA, there's no real reason for it to have no sediment. And with sours, they're often aged anywhere from months to years (sometimes even more than a decade), so sediment is just part of the deal.

As for the German wheat beer that tasted like bananas, that was likely a hefeweizen. The banana flavor comes from fermenting the yeast at relatively high temperatures and is desired for that style but not at all desired for most styles. The very first beer I ever fermented was a golden ale and tasted like bananas (due to an ester known as amyl acetate), but that was entirely because I was unable to control fermentation temperature at the time and ended up with undesired flavors.

If you're interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyl_acetate

 

[fluketamer]

Pop bottles with carb caps tee pieces sodastream , tubing and a mini reg will get you where you want to be .

All for less than 100$
Www.cankeg.com.

 

[An Ankoù]

Yes i realize many beers have sediments and it's clearly a more historic and natural state to find a beer in....but to be fair that doesn't make those beers better just maybe more historically authentic..as time marches on technology allows techniques not possible in earlier times..it would be snobbery to feel removal of sediment is for a unsavy pallet....... like I said I'm Canadian and u can't sneeze without hitting a micro brewery... I love experimenting with different beers to the scorn of guys that get the same beer every time.... sure I get a nasty tasting beer now and then.... my favorite was upper Canada brewery but Sleaman bought it or was it Labatt... either way they tweaked recipes meaning made it taste like all there mainstream products . So I stopped buying it ... mostly now I really enjoy Czech lagers . anyways the point I'm making is I'm not a mainstream beer drinker but I don't want sediment.... on occasion I'll have a specialty beer with sediment but in general to me it's a drawback technology has overcome

I disagree with you entirely. Those beers which were bottle conditioned and are now filtered and force carbonated do not taste as good as as the original. Those that are pasteurised and carbonated are even worse. Guinness is a case in point, as is Shepherd Neame Spitfire. Worthington White Shield was another great beer.
These beers were never served cloudy, they were poured carefully. In a bar, part of the bar man's skill was to pour a glass of, say, White Shield and give the glass and the bottle with a tiny bit of dregs to the customer. It's cultural, too: the practice of chugging beer straight from the bottle is rare in Europe; you might do it while camping or fishing with some mass-produced fizzy liquid, but I've never seen people drinking from the bottle in a bar.
Guinness has stopped making bottle conditioned beer and it has gone downhill in other respects, too.
Interesting that they consider bottle conditioning to be secondary fermentation, though.

 

[IODINE]

I

I disagree with you entirely. Those beers which were bottle conditioned and are now filtered and force carbonated do not taste as good as as the original. Guinness is a case in point, as is Shepherd Neame Spitfire. Worthington White Shield was another great beer.
These beers were never served cloudy, they were poured carefully. In a bar, part of the bar man's skill was to pour a glass of, say, White Shield and give the glass and the bottle with a tiny bit of dregs to the customer. It's cultural, too: the practice of chugging beer straight from the bottle is rare in Europe; you might do it while camping or fishing with some mass-produced fizzy liquid, but I've never seen people drinking from the bottle in a bar.
Guinness has stopped making bottle conditioned beer and it has gone downhill in other respects, too.
Interesting that they consider bottle conditioning to be secondary fermentation, though.
View attachment 865591

Well..... I'm not saying anything about taste really..... my compliant is in texture and convenience... I'm sure u could pour me a glass of foggy beer and I might like it.... but when that gritty sand gets in my mouth thats when I frown.... but I'm not knocking those beer styles there is a big difference between them and what we get brewing at home... I just don't want my home brew pilsner full of sediment and I want to wave around my fancy bottles which I can't do if I pour it first

 

[An Ankoù]

I

Well..... I'm not saying anything about taste really..... my compliant is in texture and convenience... I'm sure u could pour me a glass of foggy beer and I might like it.... but when that gritty sand gets in my mouth thats when I frown.... but I'm not knocking those beer styles there is a big difference between them and what we get brewing at home... I just don't want my home brew pilsner full of sediment and I want to wave around my fancy bottles which I can't do if I pour it first

You miss my point. I wouldn't want to drink beer like that either. My bottle-conditioned beers pour crystal clear. The half an inch of sediment remains in the bottle and gets tipped away. A cloudy pour not only looks bad, it tastes bad unless its a hefeweizen, for example.
Not all yeasts lend themselves to bottling, though, and many commercial producers will use a different bottling yeast to the main yeast.
I would argue that pouring the beer is a skill in its own right.

 

[IODINE]

I

Well..... I'm not saying anything about taste really..... my compliant is in texture and convenience... I'm sure u could pour me a glass of foggy beer and I might like it.... but when that gritty sand gets in my mouth thats when I frown.... but I'm not knocking those beer styles there is a big difference between them and what we get brewing at home... I just don't want my home brew pilsner full of sediment and I want to wave around my fancy bottles which I can't do if I pour it first

Also we all have are own taste... most agree the main offerings from large breweries are not as good..... it's all advertising a lifestyle.... but we have different tastes for craft varieties... I for example don't like hoppy beer... not an IPA guy.. I love porters pilsner lagers.. creamy caramel beers.... I prefer Labatt Guinness extra stout brewed here rather that imported original... it's because it has a very smoky flavour... I find Spitfire too hoppy...
Nothing wrong with sediment if that's the style .... but what would u think if somebody with different taste than you preferred filtered forced carbed Spitfire to what you say is the original...... it's subjective...

 

[IODINE]

You miss my point. I wouldn't want to drink beer like that either. My bottle-conditioned beers pour crystal clear. The half an inch of sediment remains in the bottle and gets tipped away. A cloudy pour not only looks bad, it tastes bad unless its a hefeweizen, for example.
Not all yeasts lend themselves to bottling, though, and many commercial producers will use a different bottling yeast to the main yeast.
I would argue that pouring the beer is a skill in its own right.

Fully agree on pouring.... but I want to wave around my fancy bottles showing off my beer... (I'm making a point I'm not that shallow lol)

 

[IODINE]

Fully agree on pouring.... but I want to wave around my fancy bottles showing off my beer... (I'm making a point I'm not that shallow lol)

Well... I did want to see my beer but back in the day the only clear bottles I could get were Corona bottles... I wanted to see it in the bottle....we snuck some into a pub one night and stood coincidentally under a Corona banner.... the doorman came up eventually and said so what are u going to say when I tell you we don't stock Corona? We got kicked out lol

 

[An Ankoù]

Also we all have are own taste... most agree the main offerings from large breweries are not as good..... it's all advertising a lifestyle.... but we have different tastes for craft varieties... I for example don't like hoppy beer... not an IPA guy.. I love porters pilsner lagers.. creamy caramel beers.... I prefer Labatt Guinness extra stout brewed here rather that imported original... it's because it has a very smoky flavour... I find Spitfire too hoppy...
Nothing wrong with sediment if that's the style .... but what would u think if somebody with different taste than you preferred filtered forced carbed Spitfire to what you say is the original...... it's subjective...

Yeah, you're right, each to his own. I'm not a great lover of hoppies, either. At the end of the day, we brew to suit ourselves otherwise we might just as well go to the liquor store. It really písses me off when I give a couple of bottles away and they lay them flat or start gesticulating while holding them. So you do have a point. My point was against an earlier post which seemed to imply that force carbonation gave better beer.

 

[IODINE]

To put it honestly, I don't see one or the other as "better." Though if I'm making a beer that I want to be clear, then I don't want any sediment at all. For example, lagers. Lagers should be as clear as possible. Hell, a good clear, clean West Coast IPA should also be very clear. For a traditional sour or a hazy IPA, there's no real reason for it to have no sediment. And with sours, they're often aged anywhere from months to years (sometimes even more than a decade), so sediment is just part of the deal.

As for the German wheat beer that tasted like bananas, that was likely a hefeweizen. The banana flavor comes from fermenting the yeast at relatively high temperatures and is desired for that style but not at all desired for most styles. The very first beer I ever fermented was a golden ale and tasted like bananas (due to an ester known as amyl acetate), but that was entirely because I was unable to control fermentation temperature at the time and ended up with undesired flavors.

If you're interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyl_acetate

https://images.app.goo.gl/niwAZszZhmbfdJCH9
It was this... but it's been years

 

[IODINE]

https://images.app.goo.gl/niwAZszZhmbfdJCH9
It was this... but it's been years

I can never forget the Lil hamster as I have pet rats

 

[worlddivides]

https://images.app.goo.gl/niwAZszZhmbfdJCH9
It was this... but it's been years

That's a witbier, which is a Belgian style of wheat ale that is very similar to a hefeweizen but with a few differences. I've never had that beer before, but the brewery is in the Netherlands. I'd be surprised if that beer isn't bottle conditioned.

 

[IODINE]

Yeah, you're right, each to his own. I'm not a great lover of hoppies, either. At the end of the day, we brew to suit ourselves otherwise we might just as well go to the liquor store. It really písses me off when I give a couple of bottles away and they lay them flat or start gesticulating while holding them. So you do have a point. My point was against an earlier post which seemed to imply that force carbonation gave better beer.

Omg.. thats so true.....nothing worse than somebody making room in fridge and sliding your brews under a shelf on there sides... be waiting 6 hours to drink those... ..

Well its all subjective.. forced carb is just tech advancement so I think its does make beer better is many ways... but you can't argue taste... some viking from the past might spit modern beer out saying its just water... have u had peanut butter pilsner.... first swig is " this is amazing it taste like peanut butter..second swig is this is awful it taste like peanut butter" lol.....
I said earlier how I made rocket fuel by dumping honey or brown sugar or any sugar into primary ferm above requirements..... I'd get a porter registering 13% ... and we'll it tasted as bad to me as I feel those Belgian beers taste that hit those numbers .. lol